proposed addition to providence emergency management ... · pdf fileprovidence emergency...
TRANSCRIPT
Final Environmental Assessment
Proposed Addition to Providence Emergency Management Agency Building 591 Charles Street Providence, Rhode Island
October 2010
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Department of Homeland Security
500 C Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472
This document was prepared by:
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc
530 Broadway
Providence, Rhode Island 02909
Prepared for:
The City of Providence
for
FEMA Region I
99 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Authority...................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Project Location........................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project Description................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................... 2-1
3.0 ALTERNATIVES............................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed ................................................. 3-1
3.2 Alternative 1: No Action.......................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Alternative 2: Construction (Proposed Action) ...................................... 3-1
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS ................................................... 4-1
4.1 Geology and Soils ................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Water Resources ..................................................................................... 4-2
4.2.1 Surface Water............................................................................ 4-2
4.2.2 Foodplains................................................................................. 4-3
4.2.3 Waters of the U.S. Including Wetlands & Coastal Zones.......... 4-4
4.3 Transportation.......................................................................................... 4-4
4.4 Environmental Justice.............................................................................. 4-5
4.5 Air Quality ............................................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Noise ........................................................................................................ 4-6
4.7 Biological Resources ............................................................................... 4-7
4.8 Cultural Resources .................................................................................. 4-8
4.9 Hazardous Materials .............................................................................. 4-11
4.10 Safety ................................................................................................... 4-12
4.11 Summary...................................................................................... ....... 4-13
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS....................................................... 7-1
8.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................. 8-1
9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................... 9-1
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................... 10-1
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table Table 1: Site History Table
Figures
Figure 1 Locus Plan
Figure 2 Tax Assessor’s Map
Figure 3 Aerial View
Figure 4 Environmental Justice Map
Appendices Appendix A Proposed Layout Plans
Appendix B Photographs
Appendix C Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission Review Letter
Appendix D Public Notice of Availability
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effects
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
BMP Best Management Practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO carbon monoxide
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DB Decibel
DFG Department of Fish and Game
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DNL Day-Night Average Sound Level
DPS Department of Public Services
EA Environmental Assessment
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EHP Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EO Executive Order
EOC Emergency Operation Center
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
MMRS Medical Response System (MMRS)
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NHESP Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
iii
2-1
Acronyms and Abbreviations
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
O3 Ozone
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation
PGP Programmatic General Permit
PM2.5 Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns
PEMA Providence Emergency Management Agency
PHDC Providence Historic District Commission
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIDEM Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SOI Secretary of Interior
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TESS Threatened and Endangered Species System
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
UASI Urban Area Security Initiative
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCB U.S. Census Bureau
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
WPA Wetlands Protection Act
WOUS Waters of the United States
iv
1-1
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT AUTHORITY
The Providence Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) & Office of Homeland Security
has been awarded federal grant funding for the expansion of the PEMA Emergency
Operation Center (EOC) at 591 Charles Street, Providence Rhode Island. The expansion
will provide adequate space for administrative, training, and emergency operations.
In accordance with 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) for FEMA, Subpart B, Agency
Implementing Procedures, Part 10.9, this Environmental Assessment (EA) has been
prepared pursuant to Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the President’s Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). The purpose of the EA is to
analyze the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project, and to determine
whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
According to FEMA policy, environmental planning and historic preservation (EHP)
considerations are integrated into its hazard mitigation, disaster response and recovery, and
emergency preparedness activities. FEMA, through its EHP Program, engages in a review
process to ensure that FEMA-funded activities comply with various federal EHP laws and
Executive Orders (EOs). The goal of these compliance requirements is to protect the
nation’s water, air, coastal, wildlife, agricultural, historical and cultural resources to
minimize potential adverse effects to children and to low-income and minority populations.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located within the northern portion of the City of Providence,
Rhode Island. It is bounded to the north by Gillen Street, to the west by Charles Street
(Route 246), and to the south by Marietta Street. A Site Locus Plan is provided as Figure 1.
The City of Providence Tax Assessor’s Map, attached as Figure 2, presents the Site location,
configuration, and approximate parcel boundaries. An Aerial View with distinguishing
features of the Site and adjoining properties is attached as Figure 3.
Based on the City of Providence Tax Assessor’s Property Record Cards and Tax Assessor’s
Map, the location of the proposed project consists of the three parcels located on Plat 71 at
addresses of 587 (Lot 175), 589 (Lot174), and 591 (Lot 173) Charles Street (collectively the
“Site”). The 0.67 acre Site currently features a PEMA building and paved parking areas.
1-2
Introduction
Based on the City of Providence Zoning Map, the Site is located in a Commercial (C-2)
zone; it is characterized as densely developed with mixed residential and commercial
properties. The existing PEMA building and surrounding buildings are connected to
municipal water (from the Scituate Reservoir) and sewer according to personnel at the
Providence Water Supply Board. The Site building is connected to electricity (National
Grid) and heated with oil stored in an underground storage tank. Certain surrounding
buildings are connected to natural gas (New England Gas).
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project involves the construction of a two-story building addition and a one-
story attached storage facility that will occupy an area of approximately 5,800 square-feet.
The City of Providence is providing the land for the expansion. The addition will include
training areas, dormitories (locker and shower facilities), cooking areas, new garage, and
additional space needed for necessary parking accommodations. Refer to the Proposed
Layout Plan attached in Appendix A. Photographs of the existing Site conditions are
provided in Appendix B.
Gilbane Building Company will provide Construction Management for the project. The
work will be advertised according to typical procedures that invite multiple vendors,
including minority contractors, to participate in the bidding process. All bids will be
opened at a public meeting of the City’s Board of Contractors and Supplies and read aloud.
All bids will be reviewed and approved by PEMA and awarded to the most cost-effective
responsible bidder.
2-1
Purpose and Need
2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed project is to create an infrastructure for an emergency
operation center to coordinate regional emergency response, incident command support, and
provide communications and rapid public warning.
Providence is the capital and the most populous city in the State of Rhode Island. The
Providence metropolitan area includes Providence, Warwick, and Fall River
(Massachusetts) with an estimated population of +1,622,520 persons. Providence is the
third-largest city in the New England region and 36th largest metropolitan population in the
country. The population of the City is +173,000 residents (+65,000 households). An
additional +100,000 people work or visit the City on a daily basis.
The City is geographically very compact and it is among the most densely populated cities
in the country. The city limits encompass a total area of 20.6 square-miles, (i.e., 18.5
square-miles of it is land and the remaining 2.1 square-miles is water).
PEMA is the lead agency responsible for managing the Greater Providence Metropolitan
Medical Response System (MMRS) and Providence Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
regions. With limited EOC interoperability in the eight surrounding communities
associated with MMRS and UASI programs, the Providence EOC facility is needed to be
fully ready and equipped to handle incidents which bisect traditional political boundaries
and provide needed incident support and coordination to neighboring communities within
the region. The region comprises the heart of Rhode Island’s economic, educational,
cultural and entertainment programs, and includes more than 60% of the state’s residential
population. This project will create a truly regional capability in the center of the State’s
most densely populated area.
The completion of this fully integrated and modern EOC will have an exceptional benefit
not only to the City of Providence but to the entire region of MMRS and UASI
communities. The PEMA Director will reach out to the public safety officials in these
communities and make the Providence EOC facility available in the event of a large
disaster in their communities. With a state-of-the-art operational EOC the Greater
Providence area will have a facility capable of providing assistance and interoperability to
the entire Metropolitan region.
3-1
Alternatives
3.0 ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the alternatives that were considered in addressing the purpose and
need stated in Section 2 above. Two alternatives were evaluated: the No Action
Alternative, and the Proposed Action Alternative, which is the construction of the building
addition.
3.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED
Construction of a new building at an alternative location was considered. However, the
alternative location was dismissed based on the availability of the adjoining land. The City of
Providence owns the two vacant lots (i.e., Lot 173 parcels B and C) located contiguous to the
existing PEMA facility; the resulting total area of 9,030 square-feet will be used for this
construction project. The City had former plans to develop these two parcels of land and
build affordable housing. However, in order to achieve its goal in building a modern,
efficient and effective EOC, PEMA petitioned the City of Providence and subsequently was
successful in obtaining the release of this land from the original plan making it available for
the expansion. In addition, the City is providing two other adjacent vacant lots, referred to as
Lots 174 and 175 for a total area of 8,160 square-feet for parking accommodation.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, the building addition would not be constructed. The
EOC and emergency response services would remain vulnerable to ineffectiveness and
inefficiency that would render it difficult for emergency responders to provide emergency
services during and after severe events.
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 2: CONSTRUCTION (PROPOSED ACTION)
The EOC project began in 2004 with the City designating a permanent site for the exclusive
purpose of comprehensive Emergency Management. Phase I upgrades were completed in
2008 with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants and City funding. This proposed
project represents Phase II of EOC development. In 2006 the Agency was awarded a FEMA
Technical Assistance review. Following a detailed on-site analysis by the Technical
Assistance Team in 2007, two major shortfalls were identified. First, inadequate space
within the existing facility for administrative and emergency operations; and secondly, the
lack of adequate force protection-physical security-survivability measures. Grant funding for
the facility expansion will allow the Agency to attain a modern efficient and effective EOC
capable of coordinating regional emergency response, redundant interoperable
communications, and rapid public warning.
3-2
Alternatives
Subsequently, PEMA proposed to build an addition to the existing building in order to meet
these shortfalls. This project will allow for the increase of needed space at the EOC, and
building out a new dormitory/kitchen area, locker room with shower facility, press/media
room and space for surge operations. The new facility will greatly enhance the physical plant
of the EOC and provide enough space to ensure that there will be a ready 24-hour presence
within the City’s EOC. This additional space also means that a second compliment of staff
will be on-Site should an emergency incident intensify or require the expertise of specific
individuals.
There is adequate square footage on the existing property for the new construction. PEMA
has taken steps to secure an adjacent lot currently owned by the City of Providence, to
enhance the physical security of the Site, increase parking, and ensure a buffer zone
between the neighborhood residents. PEMA has hired a professional architect to design
the expansion and construction of the EOC facility. Integrated with this facility will be
new force protection measures and overall security improvements to the facility as a whole.
This project will be accomplished through a combination of hard (cash match) and soft (in-
kind) matches from the City of Providence. Through city departments (e.g., Department of
Public Works, City Engineering, Parks Department), various resources will be utilized to
accomplish this project and minimize the burden placed on the local taxpayers during this
extremely difficult economic time.
Affected Environment and Impacts
4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS
This section describes the potential impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and the No
Action Alternative. Where potential impacts exist, conditions or mitigation measures to
offset these impacts are described. A summary table is provided in Section 4.11.
4.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
4.1.1 Geology and Soils
Based on a review of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map of the area
(Providence, Rhode Island Quadrangle, dated 1996), the elevation at the Site is
approximately 80 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). While the
general region includes hilly topography, the project area consists of relatively flat terrain
(less than 3 percent slope). Based on observations during the Site reconnaissance, the local
topography slopes gradually to the south towards the West River.
Because the proposed project involves the construction of a new building addition,
Executive Order 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated
New Building Construction, applies to the proposed project. According to the Executive
Order, the construction of the proposed project must use appropriate seismic design and
construction standards and practices. The State of Rhode Island Building Code and
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard are the only model codes that are
substantially equivalent to federal recommendations for new building seismic design and
construction. According to the National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, there is
currently a low probability of seismic activity within the project area (USGS 2010).
PEMA will ensure that this project will meet and exceed all current building codes relative
to seismic considerations and wind resistance that are required for this part of the United
States.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) online Web Soil Survey, the proposed project Site is
mapped as “Merrimac-Urban land,” which is defined as “areas so altered or obstructed by
urban works or structures that identification of soils is not feasible” (USDA/NRCS 2008).
Because the soils in this area are mapped as urban land, no soil characteristics such as
texture, infiltration, and runoff characteristics are described. Due to the amount of
imperviousness, runoff in the project area is assumed to be rapid and flows into a
stormwater drainage system.
4-2
Affected Environment and Impacts
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was enacted in 1981 (P.L. 98-98) to minimize
the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses as a result of federal
actions. In addition, the Act seeks to ensure that federal programs are administered in a
manner that will be compatible with state and local policies and programs that have been
developed to protect farmland. The policy of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
is to protect significant agricultural lands from conversions that are irreversible and result
in the loss of an essential food and environmental resource. The Service has developed
criteria for assessing the effects of federal actions on converting farmland to other uses,
including a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form AD-1066 that documents a Site-
scoring evaluation process to assess its potential agricultural value. Because the project
area is within the city limits and is mapped as urban land, the soils do not meet the
definition of prime or unique farmland soil and the Farmland Protection Policy Act is not
applicable.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts on the soils or geology of the area.
Proposed Action Alternative – Because the Site has already been developed with an
existing PEMA building, construction of a new building addition would not cause
significant disturbance of geology and soils as part of the Site preparation work. The Site
is relatively flat, therefore, grading required at the Site would be minor. Construction
activities would not be deep enough to affect underlying geologic resources. Surface soils
on the proposed project Site would be disturbed to install the new footings and
foundations, and therefore there is potential for minor erosion and discharge of sediment-
laden runoff from the project Site. Since exposed soils would be subject to minor erosion,
silt fences and/or other storm water quality best management practices would be utilized
during construction. It is anticipated that the subapplicant (Construction Manager) would
be required to submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to identify
appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize erosion and prevent the off-
Site transport of sediment. In general, effects to geology and soils would be minor and
temporary in nature.
4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 Water Quality and Surface Water
According to the topographic map and field observations, no wetlands, water bodies, or
defined drainages are present on the Site. Based on a review of USGS mapping, Canada
Pond is located ¼-mile to the west, the easterly-flowing West River is located ¼ mile to
the south and the southerly-flowing Moshassuck River is located ½-mile to the east.
4-3
Affected Environmental and Impacts
Based on a review of the area’s topography and observations made during the Site
walkover, it is anticipated that regional groundwater flows in a general southerly direction
towards the easterly flowing West River. Subsequent references to upgradient and
downgradient directions are relative to this anticipated southerly flow direction. However,
it is noted that groundwater flow direction at the Site may vary due to underground utilities
along the roadway (e.g., storm drains and utility conduits), irregular precipitation recharge,
and heterogeneous subsurface soil conditions.
Groundwater in the area of the Site is classified by the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (RIDEM) as "GB," which indicates that it is considered
unsuitable for human consumption without treatment due to known or suspected
degradation. A GB groundwater designation is typical for urban locations in Rhode Island.
There are no known private wells on the Site and the Site is not located within a wellhead
protection zone. Based on the estimated groundwater levels and the proposed construction,
it is believed that construction dewatering will not be necessary, and as such, a construction
dewatering permit will not be required.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur.
There would be no change or impacts to the water quality at the project Site.
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, temporary short-
term impacts to surface water may be anticipated during the construction period due to soil
erosion and the transport of sediment in stormwater runoff may occur at the property
boundary. However, the project will not disturb more than one acre and implementation of
the 10,000 square-foot addition to the existing PEMA building is not anticipated to
increase sedimentation to the distant surface waters. To protect off-Site areas from the
stormwater run-off of impacted soils, controls are expected to involve the establishment of
siltation fences and staked hay bales in areas of the Site susceptible to erosion.
4.2.2 Floodplains
Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to avoid
direct or indirect support of development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is
a practicable alternative. FEMA uses Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to identify the
regulatory 100-year floodplain for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Consistent with EO 11988, a FIRM was examined during the preparation of this EA. The
entire proposed project area is not located within the 100-year floodplain (Community
Panel Number: 445406 0002F) (FEMA, 2000). The Site is characterized as Zone X (area
of minimal hazard, with average depths of less than 1 foot). According to the definition,
buildings in Zone X could be flooded by severe, concentrated rainfall where local drainage
systems were inadequate or there was a failure of a local drainage system.
4-4
Affected Environment and Impacts
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to the floodplain.
Proposed Action Alternative – No adverse effects to the floodplain are expected as a result
of the proposed project.
4.2.3 Waters of the United States Including Wetlands and Coastal Zones
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates the discharge of dredged or filled
material into waters of the United States (WOUS), including wetlands, pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)
requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts to wetlands. A
Site visit was conducted on April 29, 2010 . The area surrounding the project is highly
urbanized, contains very little vegetation (i.e., three landscaping trees), no apparent
wildlife, and is characterized primarily by buildings, and paved areas such as streets and
parking lots. No wetlands (federal and state jurisdiction) were observed on the proposed
project Site during the reconnaissance. Neither the University of Rhode Island Natural
Resources and Environmental Management website (http://www.edc.uri.edu) nor the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps show any wetlands existing within the proposed
project Site (NWI, 2010).
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) enables coastal states, including Rhode
Island, to designate state coastal zone boundaries and develop coastal management
programs to improve protection of sensitive shoreline resources and guide sustainable use
of coastal areas. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) and the Rhode Island Office of the Coastal Resource Management Council
(CRMC), the project area is not located within Rhode Island’s coastal zone (NOAA, 2004;
Coastal Resource Management Council, 2010).
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to WOUS, including wetlands and coastal zones.
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to
wetlands or resources within the coastal zone would occur. An on-Site review of the
project location did not find any potential areas meeting the definition of Waters of the
U.S. in the vicinity of the Site. The proposed project would not impact waters of the U.S.
and would not require a Section 404 permit. There are no navigable waters in the area;
therefore, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 does not apply.
4.3 TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project is bounded by the existing roadways of Gillen, Charles, and Marietta
Streets. No expansion or re-alignment of these roadways is anticipated.
4-5
Affected Environment and Impacts
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to transportation.
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, implementing the
project may result in temporary traffic impacts due to construction within a portion of the
roadways. Construction vehicles would also result in temporary loss of on-street parking
spaces.
4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
EO 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations) mandates that federal agencies identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of
their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations.
According to RIDEM’s website “Mapping Environmental Justice Zones in Rhode Island,”
the RIDEM has developed and implemented several measures to ensure consistent and fair
consideration of community issues and concerns related to the City of Providence’s
environment in many programs and areas. The Rhode Island Industrial Property
Remediation and Reuse Act also requires RIDEM to consider the issues of environmental
equity for low income and racial minority populations.
RIDEM defines the Environmental Justice Communities as “the percent of the block group
that is minority or the percent of the block group that is low low-income (under 2x Federal
Poverty Level) that are high enough to rank in the top 15% of block groups State-wide.”
According to the City of Providence Environmental Justice Area Map
(http://www.dem.ri.gov/ maps/index.htm), the project Site is located along the perimeter of
an Environmental Justice designated area; refer to Figure 4.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no
disproportionately high or adverse impact on minority or low-income portions of the
population.
Proposed Action Alternative – The Proposed Action Alternative would be beneficial to all
members of the City of Providence. There would be no anticipated disproportionately high
or adverse impact on minority or low-income portions of the population; all populations
would benefit from the building addition provided by the proposed project. Furthermore,
the construction of the new facility is expected to create new jobs in the short term.
4-6
Affected Environment and Impacts
4.5 AIR QUALITY
The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that States adopt ambient air quality standards. The
standards were established in order to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts
of pollutants. Under the CAA, the EPA establishes primary and secondary air quality
standards. Primary air quality standards protect the public health, including the health of
“sensitive populations, such as people with asthma, children, and older adults.” Secondary
air quality standards protect public welfare by promoting ecosystems health, and
preventing decreased visibility and damage to crops and buildings. The EPA has set
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants:
ozone (O3), particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers
(PM10), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead
(Pb).
The EPA has designated specific areas as NAAQS attainment or non-attainment areas.
Attainment areas are any areas that meet ambient air quality standards. Non-attainment
areas are any areas that do not meet (or that contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby
area that does not meet) the quality standard for a pollutant. According to the EPA, the
City of Providence is currently designated as "non-attainment" for the air quality standard
set for ozone (EPA 2010).
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to air quality.
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no long-term
impacts to air quality are anticipated. Upon completion of construction, the new building
addition would not emit any air pollutants. Short-term impacts to air quality may occur
during the construction phase from the operation of diesel engines and other construction
equipment. Emissions from fuel-burning internal combustion engines (e.g., heavy
equipment and earthmoving machinery) could temporarily increase the levels of some of
the criteria pollutants, including CO, NO2, O3, PM10, and non-criteria pollutants such as
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These minor effects would be localized and of short
duration. To reduce the emission of air pollutants, fuel-burning equipment running times
would need to be kept to a minimum and the contractor would be required to keep all
equipment in good working order and properly maintained.
To reduce temporary dust impacts, construction contractors would be required to utilize
either a hydrant, water truck (with sprinkler hoses and bars), or other acceptable means to
control airborne dust during soil excavation, grading and other Site development activities
when necessary, keeping fugitive dust to a minimum. During Site/earth work, dust
suppression techniques would be initiated and maintained during periods when soils become
dry and there is potential for airborne dust, and when windblown dusts are generated. All
4-7
Affected Environment and Impacts
reasonable precautions would be taken to prevent the excessive generation of dust during soil
excavation, stockpiling, loading, and other soil handling activities.
4.6 NOISE
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound is most commonly measured in
decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of
sounds that the human ear can hear. The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is an
average measure of sound. The DNL descriptor is accepted by federal agencies as a
standard for estimating sound impacts and establishing guidelines for compatible land uses.
EPA guidelines, and those of many other federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels
in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses such as
residences, schools, or hospitals.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to noise levels.
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, temporary short-
term increases in noise levels are anticipated during the construction period. The proposed
project Site is located in a mixed residential and commercial area. To reduce noise levels
during that period, construction activities would take place during normal daylight and/or
business hours. Equipment and machinery installed and used at the proposed project Site
would meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. The increase in noise is expected
to be minor and short-term and is expected to comply with the City's noise ordinance.
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, federal
agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), are required to evaluate the effects of their
actions on federally protected species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats, and to
take steps to conserve and protect these species. Federally protected species are defined as
plants or animals that are listed as threatened or endangered by the USFWS. The project
area is highly urbanized, contains no wildlife and minimal vegetation (few trees), and is
characterized primarily by buildings and paved areas such as streets and parking lots
(RIDEM Fish and Wildlife, 2010). A Site visit conducted on April 29, 2010, confirmed
that the proposed area does not contain any apparent habitats for any federally protected
species. No streams or other water bodies are located on the project Site, therefore, the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not applicable to the proposed action.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no impacts to flora or fauna in the project area.
4-8
Affected Environment and Impacts
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, no impacts to
threatened or endangered species are anticipated because there is no suitable or designated
critical habitat for federally protected species in the urban project area. The majority of the
Site contains paved areas and three landscaping trees, which would be removed under the
Proposed Action Alternative.
A review was conducted for the Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List for the
county where the Site is located, including the Environmental Resource Mapping web
address (http://www.dem.ri.gov/maps/index.htm). To determine if designated critical
habitats are located on the Site; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service web page was consulted
by searching Federal Register links for individual species. The Threatened and Endangered
Species Review included the Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS) Rhode
Island website (http://ecos.fws.gov/tess/public). The Critical Habitat map (i.e.,
Environmental Sensitivity Index Map) was reviewed to determine if wildlife sanctuaries or
ecological resources are located on-Site or surrounding vicinity. In summary, the Site is not
mapped as Priority or Estimated Habitat for state-listed species and the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) database does not contain any state-listed species
records in the immediate vicinity of this project.
4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, and as
implemented by 36 CFR Part 800, requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their
actions on historic properties and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(ACHP) an opportunity to comment prior to project implementation. Historic properties
are defined as those buildings, structures, properties (including archaeological), objects,
and districts that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP). For the purposes of NEPA documentation, effects to cultural resources
are primarily evidenced through Section 106 of the NHPA.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to cultural resources
would occur. Therefore, no historic properties would be affected.
Proposed Action Alternative – The Site is currently developed and no historic properties are
present, therefore there is no potential for adverse effects.
Identification of Historic Properties. Mr. Jack Sullivan, Environmental Officer,
(Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Region l) engaged Mr. Jeffrey Emidy, the
Project Review Coordinator at the State of Rhode Island Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) who is qualified under the Secretary of Interior’s (SOI) Professional Qualification
Standards (36 CFR Part 61), to make a determination of eligibility; refer to Appendix C.
4-9
Affected Environment and Impacts
A study was conducted of the project area to identify historic properties in the Area of
Potential Effects (APE). The APE is the geographic area within which an undertaking may
directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such
properties exist. The scope of services included contact with the Rhode Island Historical
Preservation and Heritage Commission to determine recorded structures or
archeological/cultural resources.
Based on the City of Providence Tax Assessor’s Property Record Cards and Tax Assessor’s
Map, the Site consists of properties located at 587, 589, and 591 Charles Street. To provide
confirmation whether the Site is located on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
or in a local historic district zone, Mr. John Myers, City of Providence Archivist was
contacted. The SHPO was contacted to verify the NRHP status, and Jason Martin, of the
Providence Historic District Commission, was contacted to verify local historical status.
Available records were reviewed and interviews were conducted with officials at the
Providence Tax Assessor’s Office, the Providence Water Supply Board, and the Providence
Department of Public Works Engineering Division and the municipal planning department.
A review was conducted of aerial photographs (dated 1939, 1952, 1962, 1972, 1981, and
1992) provided by the University of Rhode Island Natural Resources and Environmental
Management website (http://www.edc.uri.edu). Historical Atlases dated 1882 and 1895, and
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps dated 1937 were available at the City of Providence Archives.
City Directories (listing addresses) were available for the years between 1940 and 2001.
The Site history is listed chronologically in the attached Table 1; a summary of parcel
history is provided below”
Lot Year Features
587: 1899 Either three small buildings with partial walls, or one three-story building
with 3 Storefronts and likely residences above
1921 Falciglia Amusement & Theatrical purchase parcel
1922 Falcigila transfers parcel to Raffaele Pari
1938 Stores and dwellings –still owned by R. Pari
1952 R. Pari transfers to Matthew Pari
1955 Stores and dwellings
1960 Royal Realty purchases parcel from M. Pari
1976 National Columbus Bankcorp purchased and soon demolished the building
1991 City of Providence purchases 587 Charles Street
589: 1899 Either three small buildings with partial walls or one three-story building
with 3 Storefronts and likely residences above
1920 Falciglia Amusement & Theatrical purchase parcel
1921 Identified as a theatre
4-10
Affected Environment and Impacts
1939: In February, People’s Furniture Co obtains a building permit to use it as a
store; (it appears that this may be actually 591, and the permit was obtained
prior to purchasing Lot 591 in March)
1976a Map shows building as constructed in 1926
1976b National Columbus Bankcorp purchases parcel and soon demolished the
building, (similar to 587)
1991 City of Providence purchased 589 Charles Street
591: 1899 Appears as partially vacant and partial block of 3 storefronts
1922 Falciglia Amusement & Theatrical purchases from R. Pari
1939 People’s Furniture Co purchases parcel from Falciglia
1954 Columbus National Bank purchases parcel from People’s Furniture
1991 City of Providence purchases 591 Charles
In summary, the Site was developed since at least 1882 with residential dwellings. In
1890, Mary Furlong owned all three lots; she sold two (Lots 587 and 591) in 1896 and held
the other (589) until 1908. At that point (1908), all three lots were individually owned. In
1920, Falcigilia bought the theater (Lot 589) followed by Lot 587 in 1921, which they
exchanged to Rafaele Pari in 1922 for Lot 591. Between 1920 and 1922, the Site was
purchased by an amusement and theatrical company. In 1924, the use of the building was
identified as bank and offices. Between 1937 and 1940, the Site was occupied by
dwellings and the Columbia Theatre Office. In 1952, it was converted to office use. Lot
591 was sold to Columbus National Bank in 1954. Columbus National Bank purchased
the additional lots in 1976 (assembling all three lots under the same ownership for the first
time since 1896 (except for the short time period between 1921-22 when Falciglia owned
them all). The buildings on 587 and 589 were demolished, and by 1980, were paved as
parking lots. From 1954 until 1990, the Site was utilized as a bank. The City of
Providence purchased the three properties from Columbus National Bank in 1991.
Off-Site and adjoining to the north at 581-593 Charles Street (Lot 176) was historically
identified as a post office, funeral home (from at least 1940 until the 1980s). Off-Site and
adjoining to the south at 585 Charles Street (Lot 176) was historically identified as a shoe
repair and grocery retail store (from at least 1940 until the 1960s), wholesale distribution
center(1970s), vacant (1980s), and club (1990s).
According to the Rhode Island-National Register Search website
(http://www.ri.gov/preservation/search); there are no historical properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places for Charles, Marietta, or Gillen Streets. Rhode Island
maintains a State Register of Historic Places; the criteria for inclusion in which are the
same as those for the National Register.
4-11
Affected Environment and Impacts
Providence currently has 35 National Register historic districts. According to the City of
Providence Department of Planning and Development website
(http://www.providenceplanning.org), the project Site is not located in a local National
Register Historic District.
In conclusion, no suspected historical properties were identified through the records
reviewed. The proposed building addition would not affect any known archeological or
historic architectural resources in the APE. If artifacts or other potential historic materials
are discovered during construction, work will be suspended and FEMA and the State
Historic Preservation Officer will be contacted. Should adverse effects to historic
properties be identified at a later date during excavation and cannot be avoided, they will
be resolved in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA.
4.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Hazardous substances are defined as any solid, liquid, contained gaseous or semisolid
waste, or any combination of wastes that pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health and the environment. Hazardous substances are primarily generated by
industry, hospitals, research facilities, and the government. Improper management and
disposal of hazardous substances can lead to pollution of groundwater or other drinking
water supplies, and the contamination of surface water and soil. The primary federal
regulations for the management and disposal of hazardous substances are the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The Site building contains a registered (Facility Id No. 18725) underground storage tank
(UST) with fuel oil fill and vent pipes. According to information provided by Mr. Peter
Gaynor, PEMA Director, the UST is reportedly a 2,500 gallon tank that is utilized to store
No. 2 oil for on-Site heating. A spill containment basin was installed in 2000. The UST
was not reported to be leaking.
Visual observation of the project area did not reveal obvious existing or potentially
hazardous materials, substances, or conditions. No drums or other sources of potentially
hazardous materials were observed in the project area. No aboveground storage tanks
(ASTs) were observed on the exterior of the Site. No storage, use, or surficial evidence of
chemicals, hazardous substances, or petroleum products was observed on the exterior
portions of the Site No evidence of staining or vintage, suspected PCB-type electrical
transformers were observed on-Site or on any of the power poles. No evidence of
significant stains, obvious soil discoloration, or commercial dumping was observed during
the reconnaissance. Other features were not observed during the Site reconnaissance of the
grounds, including drywells or sumps, septic systems, stressed vegetation, oil/water
separators, process wastewater, pits, ponds, or lagoons.
4-12
Affected Environment and Impacts
A regulatory review was conducted for the Site and surrounding properties. Public
information was obtained from various federal, state, and local agencies that maintain
environmental regulatory databases. These databases provide information about the
regulatory status of a property and incidents involving use, storage, spilling or
transportation of hazardous substances or petroleum products. Information was gathered
by a professional data search service, FirstSearch Technology Corporation (FirstSearch).
In summary, land use in the vicinity of the Site is characterized by a mixture of residential
and commercial properties. Several off-Site properties were identified on the state and
federal databases reviewed as part of this assessment. However, based on their distance
and/or direction from the study Site, regulatory status, and/or hydrogeologic relationship to
the Site, the listed properties are not expected to have a significant impact on soil or
groundwater at the study Site.
No Action Alternative – The No Action alternative would not disturb any hazardous
materials or create any potential hazard to human health.
Proposed Action Alternative – The proposed construction would not disturb any known
hazardous materials, including the UST, and is not expected to create a potential hazard to
human health. No Phase II Environmental Subsurface Site Assessment was completed,
therefore, no specific conclusions can be drawn regarding hazardous materials and waste
that may be encountered as excavation is conducted during the construction phase of the
proposed project.
If hazardous constituents are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the
proposed construction operations, appropriate measures for the proper assessment,
remediation and management of the contamination would be initiated in accordance with
applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The contractor would take appropriate
measures to prevent, minimize, and control the spill of hazardous materials in the
construction staging area.
4.10 SAFETY
Safety and security issues that were considered in this EA include the health and safety of
the area residents and the public-at-large, and the protection of personnel involved in
activities related to the proposed construction. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children, requires federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess
environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children.
No Action Alternative – Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur
and there would be no direct impacts to the health and safety of residents in the area.
4-13
Affected Environment and Impacts
Proposed Action Alternative – Under the Proposed Action Alternative, positive impacts to
safety are anticipated through the expansion of the PEMA building and enhanced services
that the building provides.
The architectural drawings will be developed in cooperation PEMA personnel to fully outline
and accommodate all needed shortfalls and gaps related to this facility as identified by both
the internal and external review of this facility. In addition, facility security and fencing will
harden the new EOC facility; currently, facility security is limited.
Construction activities may present safety risks to those performing the activities. To
minimize risks to safety and human health, all construction activities would be performed
using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of the appropriate equipment, including all
appropriate safety precautions. During Site development, the general contractor will be
responsible for limiting access to the Site during excavation and construction of the building
addition and for the implementation of standard construction best management practices (e.g.,
fencing) as appropriate. Additionally, all activities would be conducted in a safe manner in
accordance with the standards specified in the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regulations. The appropriate signage and barriers would be in place
prior to construction activities to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities. No
disproportionate health and safety risks to children are anticipated.
4.11 SUMMARY
The following table summarizes the potential environmental planning and historic
preservation (EHP) impacts of the Proposed Action Alternative and conditions or
mitigation measures/BMPs that will be implemented to reduce or avoid those impacts.
Affected
Environment/
Resource Area
Impacts Mitigation/BMPs
Geology and Soils No impacts to underlying geology
are anticipated. Soils on the
project Site would be disturbed
during construction.
Implementation of a SWPPP and
appropriate BMPs would be required at
the construction location, including the
installation of silt fences. If contaminated
materials are discovered during the
construction activities, the work would
cease until the appropriate procedures
can be implemented.
Surface Water Temporary, short-term impacts
may be anticipated during the
construction period due to soil
erosion.
Appropriate BMPs, such as installing silt
fences, would minimize runoff.
4-14
Affected Environment and Impacts
Floodplains The proposed project Site is not
located within the 100-year
floodplain.
None
Waters of the U.S.,
including Wetlands
and Coastal Zones
No impacts to wetlands and
coastal zones are anticipated.
None
Transportation Short-term, minor, temporary
increases in the volume of
construction traffic on roads in the
immediate vicinity of the project
Site are anticipated.
None
Environmental
Justice
All populations would benefit
from the Proposed Action.
None
Air Quality Short-term impacts to air quality
are anticipated during the
construction period.
Construction contractors would be
required to water down construction
areas when necessary; running times of
fuel-burning equipment would be kept to
a minimum; and engines would be
properly maintained.
Noise Short-term impacts to noise levels
are anticipated at the proposed
project Site during the
construction period.
Construction would take place during
normal business hours and equipment
installed and used will meet all local
noise regulations.
Biological
Resources/
Threatened and
Endangered
Species
No impacts to threatened or
endangered species are
anticipated.
None
Cultural Resources The project is not likely to affect
historic properties.
If artifacts or other potential historic
materials are discovered during
construction, work would be suspended and
FEMA and the State Historic Preservation
Officer would be contacted.
Hazardous
Materials
Impacts from hazardous materials
or waste are not anticipated.
If hazardous/contaminated materials are
discovered during the construction
activities, the work will cease until the
appropriate procedures can be
implemented.
Safety Positive impacts to public safety
are expected.
All construction activities would be
performed using qualified personnel and in
accordance with the standards specified in
OSHA regulations. Appropriate signage
and barriers would be in place prior to
construction activities to alert pedestrians
and motorists of project activities.
Cumulative Impacts
5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
According to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, cumulative impacts
represent the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions,
regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). In accordance with NEPA and to the
extent reasonable and practical, this EA considers the combined effect of the Proposed
Action Alternative and other actions occurring or proposed in the vicinity of the proposed
project Site.
This EA concerns one distinct project in the City of Providence. Only short-term impacts
to surface water, air quality, noise, transportation, and biological resources are anticipated
during construction of the proposed project. Improving emergency management response
services may also have beneficial impacts on the development potential and investment
trends in the area of the project, as potential businesses would be less likely to be
concerned about a lack of emergency response. All short-term impacts require conditions
to minimize and mitigate impacts to the proposed project Site and surrounding areas.
5-1
6-1
Public Involvement
6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
FEMA is the lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for the
Proposed Action. It is the goal of the lead agency to expedite the preparation and review of
NEPA documents and to be responsive to the needs of the community and the purpose and
need of the proposed action, while meeting the intent of NEPA and complying with all
NEPA provisions.
A Public Notice of Availability was issued on September 1, 2010; refer to Appendix D. A
(paper) copy of the Draft EA was available for comment at the following locations:
• 591 Charles Street, Providence RI 02904, c/o Peter Gaynor, Director, Ph: 401-680-
8000
• Providence City Hall, Room 311, City Clerks Office, 25 Dorrance Street,
Providence RI 02903
• GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., c/o Mark Burbelo, 530 Broadway, Providence, RI
02909, Ph: 401-427-2731
On September 1, 2010, the Providence Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) posted a
notice in the RI Secretary of State website ([email protected]) advertising the
PEMA Emergency Operation Center (EOP) Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) plan,
and invited the public to comment on the project and its potential effects on the subject
property.
The 30-day comment period ended on October 1, 2010 and PEMA did not receive
communication from any interested party, either pro or con, regarding the Draft EA. On
October 4, 2010 PEMA held a meeting at its headquarters at 591 Charles Street,
Providence to discuss and review the Draft EA. Since no substantive comments were
received, the Draft EA was approved as written and it was anticipated that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) will be issued for the project.
7-1
Agency Coordination and Permits
7.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PERMITS, CONDITIONS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
The following agencies and organizations are anticipated to be contacted by letter
requesting project review during the preparation of this EA:
• City of Providence Building Department
• City of Providence Tax Assessor’s Office
• Rhode Island Historical Commission (permits are not expected to be required by the
State Archaeologist)
The City of Providence has hired a professional architectural firm to develop plans for the
new EOC project. Note that although design concepts and floor plans are available, to date
there are no architectural plans developed or permits in place. Other than utility permits
and/or local building permits, it is not anticipated that other permits or approvals would be
needed from any other regulatory agencies.
General mitigation measures and conditions are expected to be required. These conditions
are expected to include, but not be limited to:
• Implement appropriate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water
management during construction.
• Use conventional Site preparation techniques prior to and during construction.
• Ensure that construction activities would observe the appropriate ordinances
regarding traffic control, occupational safety regulations, and appropriate noise
control measures.
• If artifacts or other potential historic materials are discovered during construction,
work would be suspended and FEMA and the State Historic Preservation Officer
would be contacted.
8-1
Conclusions
8.0 CONCLUSIONS
No long-term detrimental impacts to geology and soils, surface waters, floodplains,
WOUS, including wetlands and coastal zones, transportation, environmental justice, air
quality, noise, biological resources, including threatened and endangered species, or safety
are anticipated with the Proposed Action Alternative.
Impacts from hazardous materials or waste are not anticipated; however, excavation
activities may expose or otherwise affect subsurface hazardous materials (present in
groundwater or soils) or waste such as urban fill. Any hazardous/contaminated materials
or waste discovered during construction would be disposed of and handled in accordance
with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. If hazardous/contaminated materials
are discovered during the construction activities, the work will cease until the appropriate
procedures and/or permits can be implemented. Consultation with an environmental
consultant and/or RIDEM, will determine allowable thresholds for hazardous/contaminated
materials encountered during construction.
Beneficial impacts to public health and safety are expected. There would be minor
temporary impacts that are typically associated with construction projects of this nature
(e.g., dust, noise, and traffic). Short-term, minimal impacts to soils, transportation, air
quality, and noise are anticipated. All short-term impacts require measures to minimize
and mitigate impacts to the proposed project Site and surrounding areas.
9-1
References
9.0 REFERENCES
Personal communication with Peter Marinucci, PEMA Deputy Director.
Conceptual Drawings provided by Jbryer Designs of Jamestown, RI.
FirstSearch Technology Corporation (FirstSearch) 2010. Electronic Database Report of
Providence, Rhode Island.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of
Providence, Rhode Island. Community Panel Number 445406 0002F. Accessed June 2010.
http://www.msc.fema.gov. Accessed June 2010.
FEMA. 1996. National Environmental Policy Act, FEMA Desk Reference.
http://www.fema.gov/library/. Accessed June 2010.
Federal Threatened and Endangered Species List (http://www.dem.ri.gov/maps/index.htm).
Accessed June 2010.
Rhode Island Office of the Coastal Resource Management Council (CRMC). 2010.
Environmental Justice Map http://www.dem.ri.gov/ maps/index.htm. Accessed June 2010.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2010.
Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app. Accessed June 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas
for Criteria Pollutants. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/. June 2010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Northeast Region, Endangered Species Lists.
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/endangered/. Accessed June 2010.
City of Providence Code of Ordinances - Noise and Sound Level Regulations.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Earthquake Hazards Program, National Hazards Seismic
Maps. Available: http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq/graphics/usmap.gif. Accessed June 2010.
U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Map. Providence, Rhode Island.
Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission.
http://www.preservation.ri.gov/. Accessed June 2010.
City of Providence Department of Planning and Development website.
(http://www.providenceplanning.org). Accessed June 2010.
Jason Martin, Providence Historic District Commission, [email protected].
RI Secretary of State Open Meetings website ([email protected])
10-1
List of Preparers
10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
FEMA
Jack Sullivan, Region I Regional Environmental Officer
PEMA
Peter Gaynor, PEMA Director
Peter Marinucci, PEMA Deputy Director
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Mark J. Burbelo, Senior Project Manager
Igor Runge, Ph.D., P.H., Project Reviewer
David R. Carchedi, Ph.D., P.E., Senior Principal
TABLE 1
SITE HISTORY TABLE
FIGURE 1
LOCUS PLAN
FIGURE 2
TAX ASSESSOR’S MAP
FIGURE 3
AERIAL VIEW
FIGURE 4
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE MAP
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED LAYOUT PLANS
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION & HERITAGE COMMISSION REVIEW LTR
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY